Wildlife and Rodent Control Standards - BC SPCA
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Wildlife and Rodent Control Standards
THE BRITISH COLUMBIA SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
October 20, 2020 – Version 1.5
Authored by: Science and Policy Division
Standards for Wildlife and Rodent Control
Contents
Preface ........................................................................................................................................................3
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................3
Purpose and Scope of the AnimalKind Accreditation Program and Standards ............................................... 3
Background ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................................... 4
AnimalKind Wildlife and Rodent Control Standards ..................................................................................5
Standard 1: Business models align with a commitment to protect wild animal welfare ................................ 5
Standard 2: Ethical and legal business practices are followed ........................................................................ 5
Standard 3: Prohibited devices, trap types, poisons or killing methods are not used .................................... 6
Standard 4: Human-wildlife conflicts are clearly diagnosed prior to the start of a control action ................. 8
Standard 5: Customers are proactively educated about wildlife and rodent control options ........................ 8
Standard 6: Environments are modified to remove the reason for conflict and/or encourage animals to
depart voluntarily ............................................................................................................................................ 8
Standard 7: Removal methods that protect animal welfare are used to evict animals from structures and
locations of conflict.......................................................................................................................................... 9
Standard 8: Cage-trapping and manual capture methods are rarely used ................................................... 11
Standard 9: Release and relocation procedures protect animal welfare ...................................................... 12
Standard 10: Lethal methods are only used when an animal’s continued presence is an ongoing threat to
human health and safety ............................................................................................................................... 13
Standard 11: Methods causing the least possible pain and distress are used when lethal control is justified
....................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Standard 12: Lethal ‘kill-with-capture’ rodent control methods causing the least possible pain and distress
are used ......................................................................................................................................................... 15
Standard 13: Rodenticides are only used when the continued presence of mice or rats is an ongoing threat
to human health and safety........................................................................................................................... 16
Standard 14: The welfare of working animals used for wildlife and rodent control is protected ................ 17
Standard 15: Acts of cruelty and neglect are not tolerated .......................................................................... 20
References ................................................................................................................................................21
Appendix 1 – Definitions ..........................................................................................................................24
Appendix 2 – Standard Operating Procedure Required Topics ...............................................................27
Appendix 3 – Prohibited Poisons and Rodenticides .................................................................................28
Appendix 4 – Brand Names of Permitted Rodenticides ...........................................................................29
Appendix 5 – Critical Criteria for Animal Welfare ....................................................................................30
Copyright © BC SPCA 2020 Version 1.5 Page 2 of 30
Standards for Wildlife and Rodent Control Preface The British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (BC SPCA) developed the AnimalKind Accreditation Program and the AnimalKind Wildlife and Rodent Control Standards with funding from the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies and the Vancouver Foundation. The AnimalKind Wildlife and Rodent Control Standards are based on widely accepted ethical principles and animal welfare science. The BC SPCA is one of the largest animal welfare organizations of its kind in North America. Established in 1895 under the provincial Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA Act), the Society’s mandate is to protect and enhance the quality of life for domestic, farm and wild animals in British Columbia. As a registered charity, the BC SPCA operates community animal shelters, education and adoption facilities, veterinary and spay/neuter clinics, a wildlife rehabilitation centre, a provincial call centre, and an administration office. In addition to province-wide programs for advocacy, government relations, humane education, and scientific research, Special Provincial Constables enforce the PCA Act and Criminal Code of Canada to fulfill the Society’s law enforcement functions. Introduction Purpose and Scope of the AnimalKind Accreditation Program and Standards The AnimalKind Accreditation Program (the “Program”) aims to decrease wild animal suffering by promoting Wildlife Control Service Providers (“WCSPs”) who prioritize the use of non-lethal, removal-and-exclusion methods to resolve human-wildlife conflicts. In the limited cases where use of live capture or lethal control methods are justified, the Program supports only those methods that are legal and cause fewer harms to animal welfare. The Program contributes to public education by raising awareness of the animal welfare outcomes of traditional wildlife and rodent control methods. Wildlife generally refers to animal species that have not been domesticated, and includes species that are introduced or native, and wild-born or captive-bred. The AnimalKind Wildlife and Rodent Control Standards (the “Standards”) apply to free-living, vertebrate animals designated as wildlife by the BC Wildlife Act Designation and Exemption Regulation and any introduced wildlife species. Free-living refers to animals that are currently not living in captivity and may be independent of humans, therefore the Standards do not apply to wildlife permanently in captivity (for example, those held in zoos). Introduced species, which may or may not cross- referenced in the BC Wildlife Act, include those that are alien, exotic, foreign, non-indigenous, or a non-native species living outside of its natural range as a result of human activity. Feral cats and feral horses are not designated as wildlife by the BC Wildlife Act and are domestic species so these Standards do not apply to them; however, feral rabbits and feral pigs are designated wildlife by the BC Wildlife Act and the Standards would apply. The Standards also apply to the introduced species of commensal rodents, Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), roof rat (Rattus rattus) and the house mouse (Mus musculus). Although negatively regarded as a significant “pests” given their associations with zoonotic diseases and property damage, the commensal rodents have the same capacity to experience pain and distress as other vertebrates and it is on this basis that animal welfare considerations in the Standards have been extended towards them. The Standards were developed primarily for control of wildlife and rodents that come into conflict with humans in urban and residential settings (i.e. structural pest control). However, they could be used to guide control decisions and actions in other types of locations. Copyright © BC SPCA 2020 Version 1.5 Page 3 of 30
Standards for Wildlife and Rodent Control Accreditation is intended for individuals, organizations or businesses that manage and/or provide wildlife or rodent control services, either for external customers or internally as part of maintenance of the organizations’ or businesses’ own facilities in British Columbia (BC). Accreditation may also be considered for companies that perform wildlife and rodent control on an ad hoc basis (e.g. as part of lawn care or sign maintenance), for project- based conservation programs, or for companies that use detector dogs for insect pest control and wish to have third-party animal welfare accreditation for their use of working dogs. The Program does not currently accredit entities outside of BC. To be eligible for accreditation, a WCSP must adhere to the Standards, which outline acceptable and prohibited actions, and the terms and conditions of the Program, outlined in the AnimalKind Accreditation Program Operations Manual (the “Operations Manual”). In addition, accredited WCSPs are expected to adhere to federal, provincial acts and regulations and municipal bylaws related to wildlife, pest management, animal cruelty and the laws of Canada. When wildlife-proofing structures, WCSPs are also expected to install materials in accordance with local building codes. The accreditation process is initiated when a WCSP submits an application to the Program and is followed by participation in an audit process to establish that the WCSP meets the Standards. Accreditation must be renewed yearly and may involve an annual re-accreditation audit. The Program recovers some operating costs through fees paid by WCSPs. Background Development of the Standards was informed by: applicable laws of BC and Canada; science-based animal welfare concerns identified in the BC SPCA Humane Wildlife Control Evaluations [1]; and the ethical guidance of the International Consensus Principles of Ethical Wildlife Control [2] developed by expert consensus at a workshop held at the University of British Columbia [3]. Ethical wildlife control is defined as the acceptability of a wildlife control action based on a comprehensive analysis that includes the control action’s necessity, benefits, feasibility, costs to people and animals, alternatives, and effects on animal welfare in terms of the humaneness of the physical methods employed. In particular, the following questions about wildlife control (derived from the International Consensus Principles) guided development of the Standards: 1. Can the problem be mitigated by changing human behaviour? 2. Are the harms serious enough to warrant wildlife control? 3. Is the desired outcome clear and achievable, and will it be monitored? 4. Does the proposed method carry the least animal welfare cost to the fewest animals? 5. Have community values been considered alongside scientific, technical and practical information? 6. Is the control action part of a systematic, long-term management program? 7. Are the decisions warranted by the specifics of the situation rather than negative categorization of the animals? Acknowledgements The BC SPCA gratefully acknowledges Dr. David Fraser and the University of British Columbia Animal Welfare Program for their leadership in applying animal welfare to free-living animals and their advice during the development of the Program. The BC SPCA also thanks the following individuals and groups for sharing their expertise: Alyssa Bell Stoneman, Dr. Cassandra Tucker, John Griffin, Dr. Dan Weary, Humane Society of the United States, PAACO review panel, SPCA Certified and numerous wildlife and rodent control industry professionals. We also thank the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies and the Vancouver Foundation, for funding and making possible development of the AnimalKind Accreditation Program and Wildlife and Rodent Control Standards. Copyright © BC SPCA 2020 Version 1.5 Page 4 of 30
Standards for Wildlife and Rodent Control
AnimalKind Wildlife and Rodent Control Standards
Standard 1: Business models align with a commitment to protect wild animal welfare
1.1. WCSPs must have a written wild animal welfare policy to communicate expectations for technicians
regarding wild animal welfare (refer to Appendix 2 for required elements of policy).
1.2. Technicians must demonstrate awareness of the wild animal welfare policy.
1.3. Technician training must:
a) use Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) (refer to Appendix 2 for required SOP topics); and
b) be documented with written records retained for at least 12 months.
1.4. The WCSP must identify a professional wildlife rehabilitator operating in their provincial region or one able
to take animals from their region OR a local veterinarian in good standing with the College of BC
Veterinarians who agrees to provide emergency euthanasia services for wildlife.
1.5. Technicians or the WCSP must not have been convicted of an offence involving wildlife or animal cruelty,
and/or have not had animals seized pursuant to any other provincial legislation.
1.6. Concurrent operation of another non-accredited wildlife or rodent control business alongside the wildlife or
rodent control business intended for accreditation is prohibited (including branches and franchises, but
excluding the parent company of a subsidiary company).
1.7. Partnerships, subcontracting or referrals to another non-accredited wildlife or rodent control business is
prohibited.
1.8. The sale, barter, trade, permanent display, or use of any wildlife or wildlife parts (i.e. pelts) for any purpose
that does not conform to the Standards is prohibited to ensure there is no financial incentive for the WCSP
to capture wildlife or use lethal control.
1.9. To prevent transmission of disease, equipment that comes into contact with animals or animal blood or
feces must be cleaned prior to reuse.
Standard 2: Ethical and legal business practices are followed
2.1. A valid business license must be held.
2.2. Liability insurance must be held.
2.3. The WCSP must operate in compliance with WorkSafe BC regulations.
2.4. Technicians using rodenticides must hold valid pesticide applicator licenses in compliance with the BC
Integrated Pest Management Act and Regulations.
2.5. Technicians using ladders or boom lifts must be trained on safety for working at heights.
2.6. Technicians using gases to kill wildlife must be trained on the safe and effective use of gas chambers.
2.7. Technicians using firearms to kill wildlife must be:
a) trained on the safe and effective use of firearms (e.g. calibre, body placement, accuracy); and
b) hold valid firearms licenses in compliance with the laws of BC.
Copyright © BC SPCA 2020 Version 1.5 Page 5 of 30Standards for Wildlife and Rodent Control
2.8. Technicians must be trained on how to prevent injuries from animals (bites, scratches) and how and when
to use personal protective equipment.
Standard 3: Prohibited devices, trap types, poisons or killing methods are not used
3.1. Only wildlife and rodent control devices, trap types, poisons and primary killing methods that conform to
the Standards may be used.
3.2. Use or sale of the following devices, trap types, poisons and use of the primary killing methods is prohibited:
Devices, trap types and poisons
limb-restraint/leg-hold/body gripping (e.g. Conibear) traps or snares including foot-
encapsulating traps (e.g. EGG) and neck snares
electrocution traps
rodent glue traps
poisons other than specific rodenticides named in the Standards
avian adhesive gel repellents (optical & tactile)
predator odour repellent derived from captive wild animals
Primary killing methods
air embolism injection falconry for lethal control of birds or small
chloral hydrate mammals
chloroform freezing
decapitation of conscious animal hypothermia
drowning maceration
electrocution of conscious animal smothering/suffocation
exsanguination of conscious animal thoracic compression
vehicle exhaust to deliver carbon monoxide
The above devices, trap types, poisons and primary killing methods are prohibited for one or more of the
following reasons: the method is illegal; it may cause excessive pain, distress or physical injury to a conscious
animal; it may result in an extended length of time to irreversible unconsciousness (TIU) to the target animal; it
may result in an extended length of time until the death of a target animal; or evidence examining humaneness of
the device, trap type, poison or killing method is unavailable.
AnimalKind Standards were developed from an animal welfare perspective and aim to prioritize control methods
that cause fewer harms to animals, where possible. The assessments of control methods are informed by animal
use and killing standards, guidelines and policies produced by relevant North American regulatory organizations
and veterinary associations. However, AnimalKind assessments occasionally differ from the assessments of other
expert organizations. These differences often arise from distinctions made between appropriate killing methods
for domestic animals and wildlife maintained in captivity versus free-living wildlife. A lower standard of welfare is
often applied to free-living wildlife for practical reasons (e.g. availability of equipment) or because the animal has
been labelled a “pest” species. However, AnimalKind is aiming to create a consistent standard of care for all
wildlife.
There are a variety of legal limb-restraint/leg-hold/body gripping traps or snares including foot-encapsulating
traps (e.g. EGG), neck snares and body-gripping (e.g. Conibear) traps. These types of traps are prohibited by the
Copyright © BC SPCA 2020 Version 1.5 Page 6 of 30Standards for Wildlife and Rodent Control Standards due to the excessive physical injuries that are caused to captured animals [4] and the potential for excessive psychological and/or physiological distress to animals left in live traps for long periods due to: exposure to adverse climate, dehydration, energy deprivation, predation, self-mutilation and over-exertion [4–7]. In addition, there is the potential for animals caught in these traps to die from exertion, predation or adverse environmental conditions [4]. Electrocution traps and primary killing by electrocuting a conscious animal are prohibited due to lack of assurances that TIU is short. Although there is limited evidence that electrocution implemented under ideal conditions, with unconscious animals and using specially designed equipment, may kill quickly [8], no evidence examining the effectiveness of electrocution traps or electrocution under field conditions without anesthesia has been published. The AVMA does not list electrocution as an acceptable method for killing small rodents and some evidence suggests that electrocution may not result in death for small animals (
Standards for Wildlife and Rodent Control
Drowning has an excessively long TIU as animals take minutes to die from inadequate oxygen supply (hypoxia-
anoxia) and experience hypoxemia-induced discomfort and distress prior to death [18]. It has been deemed
unacceptable as a killing method by wildlife scientists [16,19] and veterinarians [8,9]. Smothering and suffocation
(death by asphyxiation caused by physically preventing an animal from breathing) are also methods that cause
excessive distress and a lengthy TIU [8,9]. Freezing, or causing death by hypothermia, can cause painful ice crystal
formation within tissues [8]. In addition, some species may simply enter a state of torpor in cold temperatures but
may awaken in a fully conscious state [20]. Falconry for lethal control is prohibited because of the limited research
examining the welfare impacts of killing by this method and use of live prey for training. The use of vehicle
exhaust to deliver CO is prohibited due to the unreliability of the method and the pain and distress that it causes
animals (i.e. from heat and inhaled particles) [16].
Standard 4: Human-wildlife conflicts are clearly diagnosed prior to the start of a control action
4.1. The animal species and legal status must be determined prior to initiation of the control action.
4.2. Relevant permits for the control of the target species must obtained (if applicable).
4.3. The animals’ use of the customer’s property must be determined, such as the location of a den, nest or
access point into a structure (i.e. the human-wildlife conflict).
4.4. Presence and mobility of dependent young must be determined (exception: not required for mice and rats
due to the difficulty and unlikelihood of finding commensal rodent nests).
Standard 5: Customers are proactively educated about wildlife and rodent control options
5.1. Customers must be provided in writing with accurate information about:
a) the species of animal;
b) the diagnosis of the conflict;
c) control options and the option that is recommended; and
d) recommendations for the prevention of future conflicts.
5.2. Customers must be informed of AnimalKind Accreditation by display of the AnimalKind logo on the
company website or social media platforms.
Standard 6: Environments are modified to remove the reason for conflict and/or encourage animals to
depart voluntarily
6.1. Food and water attractants must be removed, made inaccessible or the environment must be modified to
make attractants less accessible and/or the attractants must be identified to the customer.
6.2. Unoccupied shelter and potential harborage sites must be removed, made inaccessible, or the environment
must be modified to make shelter sites less desirable and/or accessible and/or these sites must be
identified to the customer.
6.3. Environmental modifications to address conflicts with beavers must include the installation of flow devices
and/or fences or devices to block access to culverts and trees.
Copyright © BC SPCA 2020 Version 1.5 Page 8 of 30Standards for Wildlife and Rodent Control
6.4. Population reduction of Schedule C or Migratory birds (with relevant permits) is acceptable by:
a) removal of bird nests with unhatched eggs and no flightless young occupying them; or
b) egg addling; or
c) avian contraceptives (e.g. OvoControl P).
6.5. Young birds must have fledged and left the nest or be flighted before hazing can commence.
6.6. Hazing using humane harassment methods is acceptable when hazing does not result in:
a) direct contact with the animal;
b) physical injury to the animal; and/or
c) mother animals abandoning their dependent young.
6.7. Use of dogs or raptors (working animals) to haze Migratory or Schedule C birds is acceptable provided
hazing is not intended to result in:
a) direct contact with the target birds;
b) physical injury to the target birds; and/or
c) mother animals abandoning their dependent young.
6.8. Technicians must conduct a safety assessment of the hazing location prior to releasing working animals in
order to determine potential hazards for the working animals (e.g. roadways, hydro wires).
6.9. Technicians must attempt to retrieve birds that are accidentally injured during hazing and transport them to
a professional wildlife rehabilitation centre or veterinarian for treatment.
It is internationally recognized that human-wildlife conflicts arise from human activities and that alteration of
human practices to prevent such conflicts, for example by removal of attractants and by wildlife-proofing
structures, is the best strategy for achieving conflict-free coexistence with wildlife [2,21]. Aversive conditioning,
also known as harassment or hazing, is the process of disturbing an animal's sense of security to such an extent
that it decides to leave its location and move on [22]. This can include use of scare devices (noise, light) and
controlled introduction of predators (i.e. falconry or dogs). Examples of hazing methods that would not conform
to the Standards include: spraying pepper spray at the animal and using paint guns or pellet guns.
Standard 7: Removal methods that protect animal welfare are used to evict animals from structures and
locations of conflict
7.1. When structure access points are closed off, at least one egress point must be left to allow the animal to
exit the structure (exception: not required for mice and rats).
7.2. If immobile and dependent young are present in a structure (exception: not required for mice and rats),
installation of an exclusion device, such as one-way doors, must only occur:
a) outside of the target species nursing season;
b) after the young are mobile and able to follow the mother out of the structure; or
c) if the structure will be entered to manually collect dependent young animals with the intention of
reuniting with the mother.
Copyright © BC SPCA 2020 Version 1.5 Page 9 of 30Standards for Wildlife and Rodent Control
7.3. Confirmation of the exit of target animals from a structure must be attempted by:
a) motion-triggered remote camera video recording of the animal(s) exiting;
b) visual inspection of the interior of the structure to verify animal(s) are no longer present;
c) direct observation by the technician of animal(s) leaving the structure; and/or
d) another method that shows the one-way door has been used.
7.4. Following departure of the target animal:
a) any eviction device must be removed and the entry point wildlife proofed to prevent animals from re-
entering the structure; and
b) a technician must be available to return to the site during the 48 hours following closure of the entry
point in the event that a customer suspects than an animal is still trapped inside the structure.
7.5. Use of one-way doors to evict bats1 from structures may only occur during September to April. It is
prohibited from May to August (inclusive) when bats are roosting and nursing dependent young.
7.6. Eviction by manual removal of immobile and dependent young animals (exception: immobile and
dependent young bats and birds may not be manually removed) may only be justified if the animals’
presence is:
a) a health and/or safety concern for the animal;
b) a health and/or safety concern for people; and/or
c) causing a structural or fire hazard.
7.7. During an eviction process, mother and dependent young must not be separated, or must be reunited if
briefly separated (e.g. using heated reunion boxes).
7.8. Eviction by moving a nest with flightless young birds is prohibited unless the nest is in a location that:
a) presents a health and/or safety concern for people (such as a dryer vent or electrical infrastructure); or
b) is dangerous to the target birds (such as a car engine, roadway, structure about to be torn down, or a
location posing immediate potential for separation of parent and young, i.e. boat leaving port).
7.9. If nests with flightless young birds are moved, young must be re-nested in a site nearby the original site, to
allow parents to continue to care for them until they are flighted.
7.10. Resumption of parental care of dependent young must be confirmed within 24 hours following any
separation.
7.11. If parental care is not resumed, orphaned young must be:
a) transported to a professional wildlife rehabilitation centre, or
b) killed using a primary killing method that conforms to the Standards if space in a professional wildlife
rehabilitation centre is not available.
1
In BC, exposure to bats is only considered a reportable disease if a bat has come into unprotected contact or suspected
unprotected contact with a person, or direct contact with a pet. Human exposure to other wildlife that may have come into
contact with bats is not a reportable human health risk.
Copyright © BC SPCA 2020 Version 1.5 Page 10 of 30Standards for Wildlife and Rodent Control
Standard 8: Cage-trapping and manual capture methods are rarely used
8.1. Healthy animals must not be cage-trapped or manually captured to:
a) resolve nuisance complaints (i.e. minor property damage, noise or smell complaints);
b) remove animals from a location that continues to provide access to food sources such as unsecured
garbage cans and dumpsters or deliberate feeding; or
c) remove animals from a location that will continue to have ongoing accessibility to other animals in the
population (e.g. open-air sheds, greenspaces, unmodified culverts).
8.2. The use of live capture may only be justified if it is legal and the animal:
a) is injured or diseased;
b) is a mother captured to facilitate collection of her dependent young for reunion;
c) is inside a building or structure and cannot find its own way out;
d) is in a location dangerous to itself (e.g. railway yard, construction site); and/or
e) presents a health and/or safety issue for people that cannot be resolved by environmental modification,
hazing and/or eviction-exclusion methods
f) is the target of legal and justified lethal control (refer to Standard 10).
8.3. Manual capture methods using hands, catchpoles or nets must be used in a way that does not cause
physical injury to the animal.
8.4. Cage traps must be labelled with the name, address and phone number of the WCSP.
8.5. Harmful outcomes to cage-trapped animals (e.g. dehydration, hypothermia) must be minimized by:
a) placing traps in locations sheltered from weather and safe from flooding;
b) protecting traps from temperature extremes; and
c) ensuring trapped animals are not without access to food or water for more than 12 hours (i.e. through
provision of food and water in trap or by regular trap checking or use of trap signaling technology).
8.6. Electronic trap signaling technology must include a self-checking feature that alerts the user if the system
malfunctions (i.e. stops working).
8.7. WCSP must not rely on a client or employees of a client for notification that an animal is caught in a cage-
trap unless a technician is calling the client daily to remind them to check and keeping records of these calls.
8.8. A captured animal may be transported for up to 8 hours if the animal:
a) is free from severe injuries; and
b) is held in locations sheltered from weather, including heat or rain, and other stressors (pets, traffic); and
c) is handled in a way that does not cause physical injury; and
d) is not without access to food or water for >24 hours (e.g. combined capture and transport time).
8.9. Non-target animals caught in traps must be released immediately upon detection unless:
a) the animal is severely injured or diseased;
b) the animal is dependent orphaned young; or
c) release of the species is illegal (e.g. bullfrogs, red-eared slider turtles and European domestic rabbits).
Copyright © BC SPCA 2020 Version 1.5 Page 11 of 30Standards for Wildlife and Rodent Control
Standard 9: Release and relocation procedures protect animal welfare
9.1. Healthy animals must be released on the same property the animals were captured on unless:
a) the capture site is a source of danger to the animal;
b) animal-proofing to prevent re-entry is not possible (i.e. construction site, open door warehouse); or
c) use of lethal control is legal and justified (refer to Standard 10).
9.2. If cage trapped mice or rats are to be released at the customer’s request, release must occur on the same
property the animals were captured on.
9.3. Manually captured bats2 must be placed on the side of a tree or other vertical surface to enable climbing
and flying away.
9.4. If captured animals cannot be released on the site of capture, release must:
a) occur within the animals’ home range, near the vicinity of capture; and
b) must comply with legal relocation distances and locations for the species as per the BC Wildlife Act
Designation and Exemption Regulation.
9.5. The WCSP is permitted to rehome legally non-releasable animals into the care of a permit-holding sanctuary
or adoptive guardian if one is available (for example red-eared slider turtles and European domestic
rabbits).
9.6. Animals must not be released if:
a) the animal is severely injured or diseased;
b) the animal is dependent orphaned young; or
c) release of the species is illegal (for example, bullfrogs, red-eared slider turtles and European domestic
rabbits).
Many wild animals live in a defined home range and removal from this area will cause them difficulty in locating
food and shelter. For example, squirrels translocated from urban or suburban locations to forests experienced
high mortality and lose access to stored food [23]. Relocated moles lose access to their run system and may have
difficulty surviving if released into new areas [24]. In addition, urban-dwelling wildlife (raccoons, skunks) tend to
have smaller and denser territories than rural-dwelling animals of the same species. Urban raccoons have
different foraging habits than rural raccoons and may suffer in rural areas due to inexperience with food sources
and predation [25]. Relocation attempts will be more successful if animals experience the least amount of stress
possible during capture and handling and species-appropriate release and post-monitoring protocols are followed
[26–28]. For example, squirrels can adapt to relocation if the stress of capture and transport is minimized by using
covered traps, cone handling bags and short transport times [5,29,30].
In addition to welfare concerns for the relocated animal, conservation concerns may arise if non-native animals
are released into an area and if new predators are introduced [31,32]. Commensal rodents are not legally
classified as wildlife in BC, but instead are considered invasive species given their negative effects on novel
2
In BC, exposure to bats is only considered a reportable disease if a bat has come into unprotected contact or suspected
unprotected contact with a person, or direct contact with a pet. Human exposure to other wildlife that may have come into
contact with bats is not a reportable human health risk.
Copyright © BC SPCA 2020 Version 1.5 Page 12 of 30Standards for Wildlife and Rodent Control
environments. Release of captured commensal rodents, although legal, raises both conservation and human
health concerns [33,34].
Standard 10: Lethal methods are only used when an animal’s continued presence is an ongoing threat to
human health and safety
10.1. Healthy animals must not be killed to:
a) resolve nuisance complaints (i.e. minor property damage, noise or smell complaints);
b) remove animals from a location that will continue to have ongoing accessibility to other animals in the
population (e.g. open air sheds, greenspaces, unmodified culverts); or
c) cull populations of animals without scientific evidence supporting the feasibility of the cull goal and
justification for the reason the animals are to be killed.
10.2. Lethal control methods may only be used if justified because the animal is:
a) severely injured;
b) injured or diseased without access to wildlife rehabilitation;
c) orphaned, dependent young without access to wildlife rehabilitation;
d) accidentally or purposefully brought into an area with no established population and where return to
established population is not possible;
e) introduced onto a small island or into an isolated area and full eradication is achievable;
f) hand-raised and human-habituated, with no possibility for rehabilitation and release;
g) a species that cannot be legally released and a non-lethal option is not available;
h) continually returning to a site where it is causing a human health and safety threat that has failed to be
resolved by environmental modification, hazing and/or eviction-exclusion methods; or
i) a commensal rodent (mice or rats) causing an ongoing health and safety threat to people that cannot be
resolved using only environmental modification and/or removal methods (e.g. pre-existing infestations
of commensal rodents; or infestations with irremediable environmental conditions, such as nearby food
sources or poorly maintained residential buildings, that are out of the control of the WCSP or tenant
residents to change).
10.3. Use of a lethal control method for an individual raccoon, goose or swan is additionally allowed if the animal
is aggressive and food-conditioned, presenting an immediate public safety risk and hazing or relocation is no
longer an option.
10.4. Lethal control must be accompanied by a plan to prevent or reduce recurrence of the conflict.
Copyright © BC SPCA 2020 Version 1.5 Page 13 of 30Standards for Wildlife and Rodent Control
Standard 11: Methods causing the least possible pain and distress are used when lethal control is justified
11.1. Animals may be killed by:
a) a professional wildlife rehabilitator; or
b) a veterinarian or their designate; or
c) a trained technician using CO from a pure gas cylinder delivered into a sealed gas chamber with a
regulator (exception: CO may not be used to kill beavers); or
d) a trained technician using CO2 – only when CO cannot be used due documented worker safety
regulations and CO2 is from a pure gas cylinder delivered into a sealed gas chamber with a regulator to
achieve >40% concentration (exception: CO2 may not be used to kill beavers).
11.2. Birds may be also be killed by technicians trained to use:
a) CO2 from a pure gas cylinder delivered into a gas chamber with a regulator to achieve >40%
concentration; or
b) for small birds (approximatelyStandards for Wildlife and Rodent Control As discussed above, the Standards were developed from an animal welfare perspective and aim to prioritize control methods that cause fewer harms to animals where possible. Therefore, AnimalKind assessments are occasionally different from the assessments of other expert organizations. The use of gas as a method of killing presents opportunities to minimize animal handling, and therefore distress, as often the cage enclosing the animal can be placed directly into a gas chamber. CO induces loss of consciousness without pain for many species [8,9]. However, there are considerable safety concerns for human operators of CO systems. CO2 has been found to be acceptable for use as a killing method for birds by veterinary and scientific groups [8,16,35], although some research has identified that some bird species find CO2 aversive [36,37]. In contrast, it has been definitively determined that CO2 is aversive to mammals and been demonstrated to be aversive to rodents below the concentrations required to render the animals unconscious (>30%) [14,16,38]. Cervical dislocation presents several animal welfare concerns. First, recent science has demonstrated there is the possibility that cervical dislocation can result in lower spinal dislocation only and that the animal will continue to breathe and remain conscious [14]. For this reason, use of cervical dislocation must be followed by immediate use of a secondary killing method to ensure death. Second, proper implementation of cervical dislocation requires training that is often unavailable to technicians, who are generally unaffiliated with universities that provide such training to graduate students and animal care staff. Guidelines on cervical dislocation recommend that rodents be
Standards for Wildlife and Rodent Control
12.5. Trained dogs (working animals) used to detect, capture and kill mice or rats must be:
a) only used to kill mice or rats; and
b) able to kill mice or rats immediately following capture; and
c) under the control of the handler.
12.6. Technicians must conduct a safety assessment of the hazing location prior to releasing working animals in
order to determine potential hazards for the working animals (e.g. roadways, hydro wires).
12.7. Mice or rats caught by dogs must be immediately retrieved by the WCSP and if necessary subjected to a
secondary killing method, such as decapitation, to ensure death.
The best designed snap traps kill instantaneously by crushing the skull and are enclosed so only animals of the
correct size can access the bait [11]. There is variability between the mechanical performance of different brands
and types of snap traps and therefore some traps kill more efficiently than others [39]. However, various snap
trap designs for rats were found to kill the target animal quickly and consistently enough to meet humane
guidelines in New Zealand [40]. Due to the frequency of non-lethal captures, ideal practice would be to use a
method of ongoing trap checking or monitoring, although this is not a requirement of the Standards.
Penetrating captive bolt traps have been shown to render rats irreversibly unconscious in less than 30 seconds (as
determined by absence of palpebral reflex) [41] and field observations found just one rat remained alive out of
125 rats that entered the traps [42]. Another study determined that death of wild-caught mice occurred within
approximately 1 minute of bolt impact, and necropsies found the impact of the bolt killed the mice by crushing
the spinal cord or crushing the spinal cord and skull simultaneously [43]. Penetrating captive bolt traps are legal
for use in Canada and not subject to regulation under the Pest Control Products (PCP) Act, similar to snap traps. In
contrast, the bait lure provided by the penetrating captive bolt trap manufacturer is considered a pest control
product under the PCP Act because it is an attractant. Since the bait lure is not registered for use in Canada, it
cannot be legally used with the trap. Instead, a food substance provided by the WCSP should be used as bait.
The use of specially-trained dogs to capture and kill rodents appears to result in instant loss of consciousness
and/or death when rodents are captured. However, this is based on anecdotal observations in trials conducted by
the BC SPCA and has not been confirmed through scientific studies. Therefore, it is essential for animal welfare for
technicians to retrieve captured mice and rats and confirm their death.
Standard 13: Rodenticides are only used when the continued presence of mice or rats is an ongoing threat
to human health and safety
13.1. When lethal control is justified the following rodenticides may be used in accordance with the requirements
of the Canadian Pest Control Products Act and the BC Integrated Pest Management Act and regulations:
a) diphacinone (indoor and outdoor use);
b) brodifacoum (indoor use only);
c) bromodialone (indoor use and outdoor use around structures only);
d) difethialone (indoor use only); and
e) chlorophacinone (indoor and outdoor use).
Copyright © BC SPCA 2020 Version 1.5 Page 16 of 30Standards for Wildlife and Rodent Control
13.2. Rodenticides must be contained in locked, secured boxes (bait stations) and labelled with the name and
contact information of the WCSP.
13.3. Written records of the following information must be maintained:
a) rodenticide bait station placement locations; and
b) bait station monitoring visits; and
c) retrieval of leftover bait; and
d) the method(s) used for killing any rodents found poisoned, but alive.
13.4. A method for killing rodents that are found poisoned, but alive, must be available.
13.5. Poisoned rodents found alive must be killed immediately upon detection.
13.6. The following rodenticides, although legal, are prohibited:
a) bromethalin; and
b) warfarin; and
c) zinc phosphide.
13.7. Placement of rodenticides in burrows is prohibited.
13.8. Rodent carcasses found at sites where rodenticide is being used must be collected and legally disposed of.
Rodenticides generally cause excessive pain and distress to the poisoned rodent and the TIU or time to death can
be 3-7 days or longer [11]. The use of rodenticides also raises concerns regarding secondary poisoning of non-
target animals that prey on rodents (particularly for anticoagulant rodenticides), as well as accidental poisoning of
other animals and people [44]. Unfortunately, there are currently no fast-acting or pain-free rodenticides
available in Canada. To minimize exposure to non-target wildlife, rodenticides should only be used for the length
of time needed to achieve satisfactory control and the leftover bait should be retrieved [45,46].
Use of some legally available rodenticides is prohibited by the Standards due to animal welfare concerns related
to secondary and accidental poisonings. Bromethalin affects the central nervous system and results in paralysis
and convulsions prior to death and there is no antidote for accidental poisoning [47]. Zinc phosphide, once
ingested, produces phosphine gas in the stomach and respiratory distress prior to death and the acute nature of
this poison increases the risk to accidentally poisoned non-targets.
Standard 14: The welfare of working animals used for wildlife and rodent control is protected
14.1. Working animals used for wildlife and rodent control must be trained to perform the desired behaviours
using force-free humane training techniques that do not include the use of released live prey or restrained
live prey in training.
14.2. Working animals used for wildlife and rodent control must be provided with retirement plans that include
re-homing options at the end of their working career; killing of healthy working animals for owner
convenience is prohibited.
14.3. If euthanasia of a working animal is required, it must be carried out by a veterinarian.
Copyright © BC SPCA 2020 Version 1.5 Page 17 of 30Standards for Wildlife and Rodent Control
14.4. Facilities housing working animals used for wildlife and rodent control must have a written emergency
response plan and readily accessible, written emergency contact information.
14.5. Dogs used in wildlife control or insect detection must be:
a) healthy and in good condition and have no visible untreated injuries or illness;
b) housed in accordance with Section 1 of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) Code of
Practice for Canadian Kennel Operations, Third Edition [48];
c) provided with food and water in accordance with Section 2 of CVMA Code of Practice for Canadian
Kennel Operations, Third Edition [48];
d) provided with veterinary care in in accordance with Section 3 of the CVMA Code of Practice for
Canadian Kennel Operations, Third Edition [48];
e) licensed as per municipal bylaws; and
f) permanently identified with microchips.
14.6. Dogs used in insect detection must be certified in insect scent detection by a professional canine detection
certification organization.
14.7. Dogs transported to the worksite must:
a) be secured inside a crate and/or in the interior of a vehicle;
b) have sufficient space to stand, turn around and lie down; and
c) be contained in a well-ventilated part of the vehicle.
14.8. Raptors used in wildlife control to haze birds must not be:
a) procured from the wild for the purposes of falconry; or
b) used in public display if showing signs of stress, aggression or other behaviour abnormalities.
14.9. Raptors used in wildlife control to haze birds must be:
a) healthy and in good condition and have no visible untreated injuries or illness;
b) housed and cared for in accordance with the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) EAZA
Falconiformes and Strigiformes Taxon Advisory Group Husbandry and Management Guidelines for
Demonstration Birds [49];
c) provided with food and water in accordance with the EAZA Falconiformes and Strigiformes Taxon
Advisory Group Husbandry and Management Guidelines for Demonstration Birds [49];
d) provided with veterinary care from a veterinarian with avian expertise in accordance with the EAZA
Falconiformes and Strigiformes Taxon Advisory Group Husbandry and Management Guidelines for
Demonstration Birds [49];
e) held in captivity legally with the relevant government permits;
f) wear an identification tag (i.e. leg band); and
Copyright © BC SPCA 2020 Version 1.5 Page 18 of 30Standards for Wildlife and Rodent Control
g) provided with daily exercise.
14.10. Raptors being transported to the worksite on public roadways must:
a) be secured inside a solid-sided, ventilated and darkened transport container;
b) have sufficient space to stand and turn;
c) have a suitable perch or floor covering for birds that prefer not to perch; and
d) be contained in a well-ventilated part of the vehicle.
14.11. A written plan outlining the steps a WCSP will take following the loss of a working raptor must be in place
and include:
a) name of person(s) and organization(s) to be notified;
b) equipment required for raptor recapture; and
c) locations to search.
There are welfare concerns associated with raptors cared for in captivity. Improper housing design and/or
materials can result in physical damage such as leg and foot injuries, broken beaks and feather damage [50].
Raptors may also experience stress from the captive environment which may result in physical and behavioural
changes. Physical signs of stress in captive raptors include feather plucking, chewing and self-mutilation [51].
Behavioural signs of stress in captive raptors include screaming for prolonged periods of time, excessive mantling
(spreading wings to cover up food), and aggression to other raptors and human handlers [51].
The BC SPCA discourages bringing wild or exotic animals into a classroom or other unnatural setting for
educational presentations, as observation of these animals outside of their natural habitat provide little
educational benefit to students [52]. However, the BC SPCA recognizes that many raptors used in wildlife control
are also used for display and educational purposes. In these cases, the hazing control work provides exercise and
enrichment for captive raptors, as well as providing a non-lethal control option for human-wildlife conflicts.
Copyright © BC SPCA 2020 Version 1.5 Page 19 of 30Standards for Wildlife and Rodent Control
Standard 15: Acts of cruelty and neglect are not tolerated
15.1. Acts of cruelty must not occur, including:
capture using a prohibited method
killing using a prohibited method
dragging of a conscious animal by any part of its body
malicious hitting or beating of an animal
disposing of an animal’s body without ensuring it is dead
15.2. Acts of neglect must not occur, including:
failing to check on a set cage trap to see if it has been triggered
failing to check on a cage-trapped animal once notified that animal is captured
cage-trapping animals in conditions that lead to pain, distress and/or death
holding cage-trapped animals for an excessive length of time before releasing or killing them
failing to attempt to reunite a dependent young animal with its mother
after confirmation of death of a mother animal or abandonment by a mother animal, failing to:
transport orphaned dependent young animals into the care of a professional wildlife
rehabilitation centre; OR
kill dependent young animals if professional wildlife rehabilitation is not available
failing to euthanize a severely injured animal in a timely manner
releasing an injured animal
failing to confirm the death of animal and/or use a secondary killing method
If an act of cruelty or neglect is witnessed, the Auditor may intervene when reasonably and safely possible. In
accordance with the PCA Act, the activity may be reported to the BC SPCA Cruelty Investigations Department.
Copyright © BC SPCA 2020 Version 1.5 Page 20 of 30Standards for Wildlife and Rodent Control References 1. British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (BC SPCA) Humane Wildlife Control Evaluation Report; Vancouver, BC, 2016. 2. Dubois, S.; Fenwick, N.; Ryan, E.; Baker, L.; Baker, S.; Beausoleil, N.; Carter, S.; Cartwright, B.; Costa, F.; Draper, C.; Griffin, J.; Grogan, A.; Howald, G.; Jones, B.; Littin, K.; Lombard, A.; Mellor, D.; Ramp, D.; Schuppli, C.; Fraser, D. International consensus principles for ethical wildlife control. Conserv. Biol. 2017, 31, 753–760. 3. British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (BC SPCA) A Common Approach to Wildlife Control for Animal Welfare and Protection Organisations. Developed from discussions at the Expert Forum on Humane Wildlife Control Standards held at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, July 27-28, 2015; Vancouver BC, 2016. 4. American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Welfare implications of leghold trap use in conservation and research; Schaumburg, IL, 2008. 5. Bosson, C. O.; Islam, Z.; Boonstra, R. The impact of live trapping and trap model on the stress profiles of North American red squirrels. J. Zool. 2012, 288, 159–169. 6. Littin, K. E.; Mellor, D. J. Strategic animal welfare issues: ethical and animal welfare issues arising from the killing of wildlife for disease control and environmental reasons. Rev. Sci. Tech. 2005, 24, 767–782. 7. Sikes, R. S.; Animal Care and Use Committee of the American Society of Mammalogists 2016 Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research and education. J. Mammal. 2016, 97, 663–688. 8. American Association of Zoo Veterinarians (AAZV) Guidelines for Euthanasia of Nondomestic Animals; Yulee, FL, 2006. 9. American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals: 2020 Edition; Schaumburg IL, 2020. 10. Fenwick, N. Evaluation of the humaneness of rodent capture using glue traps. Prepared for the Canadian Association of Humane Trapping, 31 July 2013; Canadian Association of Humane Trapping: Vancouver, BC, 2013. 11. Mason, G.; Littin, K. E. The humaneness of rodent pest control. Anim. Welf. 2003, 12, 1–38. 12. Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) Pest control – position statement http://www.canadianveterinarians.net/documents/pest-control (accessed Jan 30, 2015). 13. Stock, B.; Haag-Wackernagel, D. Effectiveness of gel repellents on feral pigeons. Animals 2013, 4, 1–15. 14. Hawkins, P.; Prescott, M.; Carbone, L.; Dennison, N.; Johnson, C.; Makowska, I.; Marquardt, N.; Readman, G.; Weary, D.; Golledge, H. A good death? Report of the Second Newcastle Meeting on Laboratory Animal Euthanasia. Animals 2016, 6, 50. 15. American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Welfare implications of thoracic compression; AVMA: Schaumburg, IL, 2011. 16. Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) CCAC guidelines on: euthanasia of animals used in science; Ottawa, ON, 2010. Copyright © BC SPCA 2020 Version 1.5 Page 21 of 30
Standards for Wildlife and Rodent Control 17. World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) Chapter 7.6 Killing of Animals for Disease Control Purposes. In Terrestrial Animal Health Code; World Organization for Animal Health (OIE): Paris FR, 2010; pp. 1–29. 18. Ludders, J. W.; Schmidt, R. H.; Dein, F. J.; Klein, P. N. Drowning is not euthanasia. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 1999, 27, 666–670. 19. Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) CCAC guidelines on: the care and use of wildlife; Ottawa, ON, 2003. 20. Bat World Sanctuary Insectivorous bat euthanasia position statement http://batworld.org/wp- content/uploads/2011/02/BWSposition_statement-euthanasia1.pdf (accessed Dec 6, 2016). 21. Hadidian, J. Wildlife in U.S. cities: managing unwanted animals. Animals 2015, 5, 1092–1113. 22. Hadidian, J. Wild Neighbors. The Humane Approach to Living with Wildlife; 2nd ed.; Humane Society Press: Washington, DC, 2007. 23. Adams, L.; Hadidian, J.; Flyger, V. Movement and mortality of translocated urban - suburban grey squirrels. Anim. Welf. 2004, 13, 45–50. 24. Baker, S.; Macdonald, D. Not so humane mole tube traps. Anim. Welf. 2012, 21, 613–615. 25. Bateman, P. W.; Fleming, P. A. Big city life: carnivores in urban environments. J. Zool. 2012, 287, 1–23. 26. Dickens, M. J.; Delehanty, D. J.; Michael Romero, L. Stress: An inevitable component of animal translocation. Biol. Conserv. 2010, 143, 1329–1341. 27. Massei, G.; Quy, R. J.; Gurney, J.; Cowan, D. P. Can translocations be used to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts? Wildl. Res. 2010, 37, 428. 28. McWilliams, M.; Wilson, J. A. Home range, body condition, and survival of rehabilitated raccoons (Procyon lotor) during their first winter. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2014, 1–20. 29. Mantor, M.; Krause, S.; Hart, L. A. Trapping and handling squirrels: Trap modification and handling restraint to minimize injuries and stress. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2014, 38, 152–159. 30. Bosson, C. O.; Palme, R.; Boonstra, R. Assessing the impact of live-capture, confinement, and translocation on stress and fate in eastern gray squirrels. J. Mammal. 2013, 94, 1401–1411. 31. Crooks, K. R.; Soule, M. E. Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system. Nature 1999, 400, 563–566. 32. Rankin, C.; Booth, J.; Cannings, S. Invasive Alien Species Framework for BC: Indentifying and Addressing Threats to Biodiversity; Victoria, BC, 2004. 33. Himsworth, C.; Zabek, E.; Tang, P.; Parsons, K.; Koehn, M.; Jardine, C.; Patrick, D. Bacteria isolated from conspecific bite wounds in Norway and black rats: Implications for bite-associated infections in people. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2014, 14, 94–100. 34. Himsworth, C. G.; Patrick, D. M.; Mak, S.; Jardine, C. M.; Tang, P.; Scott Weese, J. Carriage of Clostridium difficile by wild urban Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) and black rats (Rattus rattus). Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2014, 80, 1299–1305. 35. American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) AVMA Guidelines for the Humane Slaughter of Animals: 2016 Edition; AVMA: Schaumburg IL, 2016. Copyright © BC SPCA 2020 Version 1.5 Page 22 of 30
You can also read
